Shereen Paramalingam1, Kelly Morgan2, Fabio Becce3, Louise P Diederichsen4, Kei Ikeda5, Peter Mandl6, Sarah Ohrndorf7, Andrea Delle Sedie8, Veronika Sharp9, Ai Lyn Tan10, Lene Terslev11, Richard J Wakefield10, George A W Bruyn12, Maria-Antonietta D'Agostino13, Helen I Keen14. 1. Department of Rheumatology, Fiona Stanley Hospital, 11 Robin Warren Dr, Murdoch, Western Australia 6150, Australia; University of Notre Dame Australia, Western Australia, Australia. Electronic address: Shereen.Pararamalingam@health.wa.gov.au. 2. Department of Rheumatology, Fiona Stanley Hospital, 11 Robin Warren Dr, Murdoch, Western Australia 6150, Australia. 3. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Lausanne University Hospital, Switzerland; University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland. 4. Department of Rheumatology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark. 5. Department of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Chiba University Hospital, Chiba, Japan. 6. Medical Department III, Rheumatology, Medical University Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 7. Department of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117 Berlin, Germany. 8. Rheumatology Unit, University of Pisa, Italy. 9. Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, San Jose, CA 94025, USA. 10. NIHR Leeds Biomedical Research Centre, Chapel Allerton Hospital, Leeds, UK; Leeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK. 11. Center for Rheumatology and Spine Diseases, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Glostrup, Denmark. 12. Department of Rheumatology, MC Hospital Group, Lelystad, the Netherlands. 13. UVSQ, Inserm U1173, Infection et inflammation, Laboratory of Excellence INFLAMEX, Université Paris-Saclay, 78180 Montigny-Le-Bretonneux, France; Rheumatology Department, Ambroise Paré Hospital, AP-HP-Paris Saclay, 92100 Boulogne-Billancourt, France. 14. University of Western Australia, Australia.
Abstract
AIMS: To analyze whether there is sufficient data from published literature to demonstrate that ultrasound, including elastography, present good metric properties (truth, discrimination and feasibility) in autoimmune myositis (AIM). METHODS: A population, intervention, comparator and outcome-structured (PICO) search was performed in Medline, Cochrane Library and Embase database from 01/01/1973 to 08/05/2019. The inclusion criteria required original research involving adult humans, reported in English, assessing ultrasound and elastography in patients with an AIM. Conference abstracts and computer-assisted diagnostics that focused on technique and not ultrasound domains were excluded. RESULTS: Approximately 2670 articles were identified. Forty-one full-text articles were included in the final analysis. There were 551 AIM patients studied. Eighteen studies (43.9%) had a control group, of which 15 (63.3%) were healthy controls. The age of participants (including controls) varied from 18 to 86 years, and most were females (59%). Diagnosis of AIM was largely biopsy-proven, although some were derived through clinical presentation, positive clinical imaging (ultrasound or otherwise) and/or electromyography and steroid responsiveness. The features examined with ultrasound in the 41 included articles consisted of: muscle echogenicity, bulk, atrophy, architecture, power Doppler, perfusion characteristics, shear wave modulus, shear wave velocity, elasticity index and fasciculations. Twelve studies (29.2%) used quantitative methods to assess these characteristics, whilst others used semi-quantitative, dichotomous/binary and descriptive scoring systems. Criterion validity was met in 14 studies (12/14, 85.7%) and construct validity in 22 studies (22/25, 88.0%). Most published articles reported Level 3b to Level 5 evidence with varying degrees of bias. There was only one longitudinal study examining discrimination. Reliability and feasibility were under-reported. CONCLUSION: This is the first systematic review studying the utility of ultrasound, including elastography, in AIM. There is some evidence for criterion and construct validity, suggesting that ultrasound may be a promising outcome measurement instrument in AIM. Agreement on the standardization of acquisition, and the definitions of target domains, is required. Additionally, further validation studies are required to determine discrimination, reliability and feasibility.
AIMS: To analyze whether there is sufficient data from published literature to demonstrate that ultrasound, including elastography, present good metric properties (truth, discrimination and feasibility) in autoimmune myositis (AIM). METHODS: A population, intervention, comparator and outcome-structured (PICO) search was performed in Medline, Cochrane Library and Embase database from 01/01/1973 to 08/05/2019. The inclusion criteria required original research involving adult humans, reported in English, assessing ultrasound and elastography in patients with an AIM. Conference abstracts and computer-assisted diagnostics that focused on technique and not ultrasound domains were excluded. RESULTS: Approximately 2670 articles were identified. Forty-one full-text articles were included in the final analysis. There were 551 AIM patients studied. Eighteen studies (43.9%) had a control group, of which 15 (63.3%) were healthy controls. The age of participants (including controls) varied from 18 to 86 years, and most were females (59%). Diagnosis of AIM was largely biopsy-proven, although some were derived through clinical presentation, positive clinical imaging (ultrasound or otherwise) and/or electromyography and steroid responsiveness. The features examined with ultrasound in the 41 included articles consisted of: muscle echogenicity, bulk, atrophy, architecture, power Doppler, perfusion characteristics, shear wave modulus, shear wave velocity, elasticity index and fasciculations. Twelve studies (29.2%) used quantitative methods to assess these characteristics, whilst others used semi-quantitative, dichotomous/binary and descriptive scoring systems. Criterion validity was met in 14 studies (12/14, 85.7%) and construct validity in 22 studies (22/25, 88.0%). Most published articles reported Level 3b to Level 5 evidence with varying degrees of bias. There was only one longitudinal study examining discrimination. Reliability and feasibility were under-reported. CONCLUSION: This is the first systematic review studying the utility of ultrasound, including elastography, in AIM. There is some evidence for criterion and construct validity, suggesting that ultrasound may be a promising outcome measurement instrument in AIM. Agreement on the standardization of acquisition, and the definitions of target domains, is required. Additionally, further validation studies are required to determine discrimination, reliability and feasibility.
Authors: Fausto Salaffi; Marina Carotti; Andrea Di Matteo; Luca Ceccarelli; Sonia Farah; Catalina Villota-Eraso; Marco Di Carlo; Andrea Giovagnoni Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2022-09-20 Impact factor: 6.313
Authors: Adham Aboul Fotouh; Mona Hamdy; Fatma Ali; Eman F Mohamed; Abdallah Allam; Waleed A Hassan; Ahmed Elsaman; Amany El-Najjar; Marwa A Amer; Doaa Mosad; Samar Tharwat; Samah A El Bakry; Hanan Saleh; Ahmed Zaghloul; Mostafa Mahmoud; Reem H A Mohammed; Hanan El-Saadany; Hanan M Fathi; Nevin Hammam; Hala A Raafat; Ashraf N Moharram; Tamer A Gheita Journal: Open Access Rheumatol Date: 2022-04-11
Authors: Emilio Filippucci; Walter Grassi; Andrea Di Matteo; Gianluca Smerilli; Edoardo Cipolletta; Fausto Salaffi; Rossella De Angelis; Marco Di Carlo Journal: Curr Rheumatol Rep Date: 2021-07-16 Impact factor: 4.592